Saturday, September 29, 2007

The prime minister, John Howard, said yesterday he believed the continuing drought was an example of "climate shift", not climate change.

"We are seeing what the experts call a climate shift and I do think we should keep our heads about it."

Experts do indeed occasionally refer to "climate shift", but not in a good way. You'll often find the words "climate shift" used for even greater doom-and-gloom effect than "climate change" (see links below). Maybe he should have gone with "climate rejuvination" instead.

President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the leaders of the UK, Russia, China, Indonesia, nearly every PM or president of the European Union, all now officially recognize the 'reality' of climate change and have announced their intention to do something to stop it, eventually.

But not John Howard.

No. He recognizes the reality of climate "shift" instead.

The news that Howard has embraced 'climate shift' will no doubt delight Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair, but the 70% of Australians who view climate change as posing "clear and catastrophic threats" to the future of their children, and grandchildren, and are sick to death of Howard's procrastination on bringing our energy supplies out of the 19th century, will hear the PM and mutter "WTF is that old bastard on about now?"

Did someone actually advise Howard to do this? Or has been eating mushrooms from the cow paddocks again?

UPDATE :John Howard probably thinks rebranding 'climate change' as 'climate shift' will help him reshape the national debate and draw attention away from the overwhelming international recognition of the reality of climate change now unfolding. It's like referring to 'civilian casualties' in Iraq as 'unexpected non-combatant weapon encouters'. Call it what you like, they're still dead, and the Australian climate (not weather) is undergoing a dangerous, costly and food-shortage producing transformation.